Talk:Munkar and Nakir

Belief in Allah

Is the only criteria for your final destination the fact you believe in Allah? Does how you led your life have anything to do with going to heaven or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.36.201 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 11 November 2003 (UTC)

You'll have to know those answers "hearthfully", in order to give them that day. More specifically, the way you spent your life and the way you beleived will determine if you'll be able to speak the answers clearly, or you'll be unable to do so.

It's better not to thing in the terms of your "ability" in your lifetime.

Sukru

Heaven or Hell

According to Islam, if you have even the slightest belief in God equal to a mustard seed, you will eventually enter heaven. However, it is all up to God, we cannot speak for Him, and He will take into account extenuating circumstances such as if a person never heard of God before they died. How you led your life will affect how you are judged on Judgment Day, and will affect where you are placed in heaven or hell. mr100percent (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2005 (UTC)

Prophet

"depending on what time period they live in, they will name their prophet"

Could someone, please, elaborate this statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.225.2 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 5 April 2005 (UTC)

According to Islam, Muhammed is not the only prophet, but is one of them and is the Seal of the Prophets. There have been earlier ones, starting from Adam, including Moses, Abraham, to Jesus (actual number is more than 100,000).

So even if you did not live after the time of Muhammed, you'll be able to speak the name of the prophet of your time or region and will gain salvation.

Note: As far as I know, according to Christianity there is no chance for salvation for those who lived before Jesus, is this true?

Sukru

See Harrowing of Hell, for a start, for more information on Christian beliefs about this. 86.136.7.160 17:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that article helped too much. Obviously Christians believe people who lived before Jesus had salvation too, or else Abraham and all those guys are outta luck. The most logical explanation is that they still believed in the messiah, but in the future-tense instead of in the past-tense as we do now. Interpretation of many Old Testament passages as telling of the eventual coming of the christ is the basis of that.

Coincidence?

All-mighty Allah sent down to the people prophets from amongst themselves, (from their own tribes and peoples). And all of these prophets lead the people on one path, the path pf Islam.

In Russian: <<http://www.umma.ru/articles/al-maida/>>: "...Он ниспосылал им пророков из них же самих (из их же племен и народов), которые вели людей по одному, (широченному и) единому пути (понимания, восприятия жизни)...."

Is it just a coincidence that the word "wrong" is also "Munkar" - in Arabic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.0.84 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Use of the number 40

Is is appropriate to use the number 40 when discussing distance from the grave given that the number 40 is used in many Middle Eastern traditions to describe a large but indefinite amount? While it represents the literal translation, it misrepresents the meaning of the term.

184.171.152.180 (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Nergal Disputation

Dear Tarasayni,

I am currently tied up at work and have not had an opportunity to address your edits or your issues in full. Please give me a few days, and I'll get back to you. Thanks.

Maqdisi117 (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear Maqdisi117,

Thank you for understanding and also for editing! Greetings --Tarasyani (talk) 02:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear Maqdisi117,

You add it again: "In stark contrast, scholar A. J. Wensinck found the association of Munkar and Nakir to the root NKR to be unlikely, thus rendering any relationship with Nergal tenuous at best".

Of course, you may add Wensinck's views on the names Munkar and Nakir. However, I suggest you not add your personal comment that there is no connection between Nergal's epithet and the names Munkar and Nakir. This is not honest! First of all, this is just your personal interpretation and you have no scientific references. Nobody claimed that the names Munkar and Nakir had an etymological connection with Nergal's epithet nakru; because this argument about Nergal and Munkar and Nakir is still new and has not come under any criticism in the literature. Furthermore, on the contrary, as I wrote earlier, Munkar and Nakir derive linguistically and semantically from the Semitic root n-k-r, and its relation to Nergal and his epithet nakru proves this. Also, these angels are sometimes varied, and there is also another angel who takes the name Nakur besides Nakir. Even this reveals the importance of Nakru which is an epithet of god Nergal.

If any researcher hesitates to attribute the names of Munkar and Nakir to the root n-k-r, this is not about linguistic justification; because all these researchers found the angels' names strange. Unable to explain this, they turned to the idea that there is no etymological relationship between them (Nakir-Nkr) as the easiest way. In Aksoy's work, you can find a detailed etymological analysis of these names and their connection with the n-k-r root!

I repeat; You can write down the idea of ​​Wensinck or any other researcher that repeats it. But this is just a claim. Moreover, it is a great contradiction to say that these names don't come from n-k-r after giving negative meanings. Most researchers say that Munkar and Nakir means "the Denied and the Deniers." Or even if they give these names some other meanings, these often carries negative content. So they accept that these names come from the root n-k-r. Please put an end to this meaningless stubbornness and edit your related sentence! Please, just add Wensinck's statement as a claim! --Tarasyani (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Munkar and Nakir derive linguistically and semantically from the Semitic n-k-r root, and his association with both the functions of Nergal and his epithet nakru proves this. From a linguistic point of view, there is no other option. If there is an opposite explanation, you can find it by adding the reference and adding it here. No problem! But you don't have to delete and break the textual meaning on the article. Tirmidhi is the first to mention them by names; however, these figures previously existed in the Islamic tradition. Wensinck found these names strange because of their known meaning and he could not identify their origin. Wensinck is an great name, but his texts should also be read critically; just as you critically grasp Aksoy's claim. There are no prophets in science, and what they say is not hadith. Moreover, even the accuracy of hadiths is reasonably debated today. Please do not interfere with the text except for reasonable modifications. I would like you to know that I will be welcoming new information. Greetings--Tarasyani (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear Maqdisi117,

What did you write on the revision history, let's look; because each time you write something different on revision history, is paradoxical. I don't want to believe you're doing this on purpose!

21 September 2020 (22: 40): "Gurdal Askoy never implies this in his paper, he just makes a general note that the earliest mention of Munkar and Nakir go back to Tirmidhi. If his paper is translated into English, he notes that the words munkar and nakir were already present in pre-Islamic Arabia, and those not necessarily introduced into the Islamic faith".

27 September 2020 (04:00): "This is incorrect, as I've read the Turkish and even contacted the researcher myself. He proposes a theory, although there is by no means a consensus on this issue. From an epistemological standpoint this a difficult argument to make, and is mostly conjecture".

30 September 2020 (04:43): "Again, please settle this dispute in the Talk section, not here. Please abide the rules and observe good nettiquette. Gurdal Askoy’s is neither independently he peer-reviewed not has it been accepted in any noteworthy journals. (P.S. Refrain from making assumptions about what I read and didn’t read and making this personal".

Dear Maqdisi117,

If it was so important... Did you write anything about this subject? Where is your publications which are published in any noteworthy journals ? Even though you have no scientific publications, you think you have the right to easily remove something here which is from a scientific study. So! It's not fair! Moreover; did Spinoza have articles published in a highly peer-reviewed journal? You could say there were no scientific journals in his day, but this is just example and my intention is something else. Hierarchy cannot determine science or philosophy, and academia is not everything. You think science cannot live outside the academy. It is absolutely incorrect.

On the other hand, academia can be organized hierarchically, but science does not worship to hierarchy and power. Sometimes even a PhD student can demonstrate that the determination of a professor or an expert is wrong.

These are my last statements, the rest is up to your conscience ...

I do not want to start a scientific discussion here. I will only transfer my note here which I wrote it on your personal talkpage, but you could not reply to what I wrote there:

"Dear Maqdisi007,

Obviously, you are new here and you have created a nickname to be able to change this page. First of all, welcome! I will have a few words about what you add to this page. I hope it works.

You say that you are contacted to Aksoy and according to you, he confirm what you say!!! First, let me say that personal contacts are not important. It doesn't mean anything in the scientific area or context. Even if you claim to have seen Munkar and Nakir, this fact does not change. ;) Moreover, it is not possible for the researcher to tell you something completely different from his text. Here is a link to his work and it is very clear what he is saying there. There is also an abstract in English! Therefore it is uncorrect what you wrote here (in the balk for notes about adding and changing). If you could read Turkish, you could not write the researcher's surname incorrectly.

Secondly; A.J. Wensinck is a great name in Islamology. That's true. But the point is different. About a hundred years ago he wrote very short text about Munkar and Nakir -even not two pages- in the Encyclopedia of Islam and he said that the origins of these figures are unknown. Aksoy's research shows us that they are transformations of Nergal. At least he provides convincing information and connections. Second study is from 2017, just new. Therefore, Wensinck couldn't say something about Aksoy's thesis as you tried to mean. Since you have not read text by Aksoy, you are writing wrong or unnecessary points here. You may only say that Wensinck was unclear about the origin of these figures or he said nothing about their origins. But if you write that "in stark contrast, scholar A. J. Wensinck found the association of Munkar and Nakir to the root NKR to be unlikely, thus rendering any relationship with Nergal tenuous at best," it means you just want to manipulate readers. One more time, of course Wensinck is certainly a great name, but like everyone else, he is not infallible...

On the other hand, I urge you not only to look at Wensinck's short article, which says 'their origin is unknown', before coming to a conclusion about Munkar and Nekir. Find an acquaintance and read Aksoy's extensive research in Turkish. If you re-do this kind of manipulation, you can be sure I don't argue with you anymore. This is nothing but a friendly explanation. I hope you understand it. Please don't change the page as you did before! Greetings Tarasyani (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2020" --Tarasyani (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Wensinck and the thesis by S.R. Burge are quality references, and they should not be neglected simply because of the recency of Askoy's publication, of which only his abstract is accessible in English, and is for the most part difficult to comprehend due to his poor writing. On the other hand, I have read the entire article in full, not just the abstract. Furthermore, assertions do not constitute evidence, he merely drew upon on tenuous relationships. As such, it would be intellectually dishonest to herald them as proof when his paper has not been proofread or approved by any respectable peer-reviewed journal.

Bottom line: independent research does not take precedence over attested scholarship.

Maqdisi117 (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Maqdisi117

Continuity of Nakir from Nergal and the Turkish Researchers work.

Tirmidhi going to Iraq (if true) is completely irrelevant as that’s not how hadith science works in the Sunni school. Tirmidhi was a Sunni hadith scholar and the basics of their scholarship is that people in Medina and Mecca are truthful, people in Syria are somewhat disputed, and the people of Iraq are liars (Ibn Taymiyyah, The People of Madina). None of the narrators of the sahih hadiths in Tirmidhi are Iraqi or Mesopotamian. As all were Muslim and people the Prophet knew (whom were mostly Arab and previously followed Arab Polytheism). This would have to mean that A) A person the Prophet knew went to Iraq, went against all convictions and contemporary knowledge that he was truthful, honest and pious to insert one Mesopotamian God into Islamic Eschatology for no discernible reason (as many of the Mesopotamians were already converting) without 1400 years of scholarship noticing or B) a follower of this religion somehow infiltrated Hadith sciences and perfectly understanding Qurayshi Arabic created an accurate and biographically sufficient chain of narrators (knowing them by name even the ones in places he’s never been) knowing all of them to be truthful and pious and then tricking tirmidhi into writing it in his Sahih (which never occured with his other hadiths). Just so that he can have a figure in Islam that has the same semantic root as a figure whom wasn’t even worshipped by the majority in Iraq? Forgive me, but that doesn’t seem accurate or historical, and it’s relevance is strongly questionable.

There’s also the case of whether linguistic analysis can actually show theological similarities. As Nergal and Nakir aren’t similar in any theological way, unless you focus on things that are beyond the scope of the hadith literature (like the article does with claiming stories from certain cultures, that previously worshipped Nergal). I believe it to be hearsay, and until it is subject to literary and historical criticism I say it should be put on hold or looked at critically in the article. 2001:1970:5163:1200:0:0:0:D48B (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Intentional False Information under the "History and Origins" Section

@VenusFeuerFalle This article contains blatant lies under "History and Origins" section. For example the article falsely claims that "There is no reference to Munkar and Nakir in the Quran" this is of course a blatant lie as the grave questions are clearly mentioned in Quran 14:27 and it is explained in both Tafsir al-Tabari and Tafsir Ibn Kathir

Also the same section is talking about Zoroastrian figures which is completely irrelevant even the currently survived Avesta was written 200 years after Islam. You reverted my edits and I will not waste my time with you again. I suggest you fix it yourself because this section is a complete joke especially the part talking about Tirmidhi otherwise you will be helping in publishing a bunch of false information. Terminator 5505 (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Tafsir are an interpretation of the Quran. The relevance of the Zorastrian spirits seem undue to me, as well. I also regard the extention of historical influence as undie weight, since the main-focus is on Munkar and Nakir, not the general idea of angels of the grave in various religions. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)